Esic vs Cd Security Services Network Ltd
2013 Latest Caselaw 1324 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CM No.4674/2013 and FAO NO.142/2013


                                         Decided on:- March 18th , 2013

ESIC                                         .......Appellants
                     Through:                Mr.Sunny    Arora       for
                                             Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Adv.

                     Versus

CD SECURITY SERVICES NETWORK LTD. ......Respondent
              Through:         None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated

05.08.2011 along with an application seeking condonation of delay of

850 days in re-filing the appeal. Vide impugned order, the matter was

remanded back to the appellate authority for the purpose of

reconsideration of its order after taking into consideration the documents,

which have been furnished by the respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through

the record. According to Rule 5, Chapter 1, Part A(a) Delhi High Court

Rules, the appeal, in case of objections must be collected from the

Registry and re-filed within a period of one week. Although a period of

one week is given for the purpose of re-filing but even if it is liberally

construed, the application or the appeal must be re-filed within a

reasonable time. Certainly a delay of 850 days, which almost constitutes

two years delay, cannot be construed as a reasonable delay in re-filing of

the appeal. Moreover, this has to be construed as a delay in original filing.

The appellant is a Government body and the reason for delay in re-filing,

which, in fact, is essentially a delay in original filing has to be explained

so as to constitute a 'sufficient cause'. It seems that the appellant being a

Corporation has taken it for granted that since it is a public body the delay

will be condoned as a matter of course. The law of limitation is equally

applicable to the Government organization or public bodies as it is

applicable to the private individuals. No undue indulgence can be shown

to the public bodies. Since no 'sufficient cause' has been shown,

therefore, the delay of 850 days in re-filing the appeal does not deserve to

be condoned. Moreover, the trial court has only remanded the matter

back for consideration of documents filed by the respondents. The

application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is dismissed

and the appeal itself is dismissed as being time barred.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MARCH 18, 2013 ss